
The Cult of CheDon't applaud The Motorcycle Diaries.
Posted Friday, Sept. 24, 2004, at 7:33 AM ET
The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on. He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.
The present-day cult of Che—the T-shirts, the bars, the posters—has succeeded in obscuring this dreadful reality. And Walter Salles' movie The Motorcycle Diaries will now take its place at the heart of this cult. It has already received a standing ovation at Robert Redford's Sundance film festival (Redford is the executive producer of The Motorcycle Diaries) and glowing admiration in the press. Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet he has been erected into a symbol of freedom. He helped establish an unjust social system in Cuba and has been erected into a symbol of social justice. He stood for the ancient rigidities of Latin-American thought, in a Marxist-Leninist version, and he has been celebrated as a free-thinker and a rebel. And thus it is in Salles' Motorcycle Diaries.
The film follows the young Che and his friend Alberto Granado on a vagabond tour of South America in 1951-52—which Che described in a book published under the title Motorcycle Diaries, and Granado in a book of his own. Che was a medical student in those days, and Granado a biochemist, and in real life, as in the movie, the two men spent a few weeks toiling as volunteers in a Peruvian leper colony. These weeks at the leper colony constitute the dramatic core of the movie. The colony is tyrannized by nuns, who maintain a cruel social hierarchy between the staff and the patients. The nuns refuse to feed people who fail to attend mass. Young Che, in his insistent honesty, rebels against these strictures, and his rebellion is bracing to witness. You think you are observing a noble protest against the oppressive customs and authoritarian habits of an obscurantist Catholic Church at its most reactionary.
Yet the entire movie, in its concept and tone, exudes a Christological cult of martyrdom, a cult of adoration for the spiritually superior person who is veering toward death—precisely the kind of adoration that Latin America's Catholic Church promoted for several centuries, with miserable consequences. The rebellion against reactionary Catholicism in this movie is itself an expression of reactionary Catholicism. The traditional churches of Latin America are full of statues of gruesome bleeding saints. And the masochistic allure of those statues is precisely what you see in the movie's many depictions of young Che coughing out his lungs from asthma and testing himself by swimming in cold water—all of which is rendered beautiful and alluring by a sensual backdrop of grays and browns and greens, and the lovely gaunt cheeks of one actor after another, and the violent Andean landscapes.
The movie in its story line sticks fairly close to Che's diaries, with a few additions from other sources. The diaries tend to be haphazard and nonideological except for a very few passages. Che had not yet become an ideologue when he went on this trip. He reflected on the layered history of Latin America, and he expressed attitudes that managed to be pro-Indian and, at the same time, pro-conquistador. But the film is considerably more ideological, keen on expressing an "indigenist" attitude (to use the Latin-American Marxist term) of sympathy for the Indians and hostility to the conquistadors. Some Peruvian Marxist texts duly appear on the screen. I can imagine that Salles and his screenwriter, José Rivera, have been influenced more by Subcomandante Marcos and his "indigenist" rebellion in Chiapas, Mexico, than by Che.
And yet, for all the ostensible indigenism in this movie, the pathos here has very little to do with the Indian past, or even with the New World. The pathos is Spanish, in the most archaic fashion—a pathos that combines the Catholic martyrdom of the Christlike scenes with the on-the-road spirit not of Jack Kerouac (as some people may imagine) but of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, a tried-and-true formula in Spanish culture. (See Benito Pérez Galdós' classic 19th-century novel Nazarín.) If you were to compare Salles' The Motorcycle Diaries, with its pious tone, to the irrevent, humorous, ironic, libertarian films of Pedro Almodóvar, you could easily imagine that Salles' film comes from the long-ago past, perhaps from the dark reactionary times of Franco—and Almodóvar's movies come from the modern age that has rebelled against Franco.
The modern-day cult of Che blinds us not just to the past but also to the present. Right now a tremendous social struggle is taking place in Cuba. Dissident liberals have demanded fundamental human rights, and the dictatorship has rounded up all but one or two of the dissident leaders and sentenced them to many years in prison. Among those imprisoned leaders is an important Cuban poet and journalist, Raúl Rivero, who is serving a 20-year sentence. In the last couple of years the dissident movement has sprung up in yet another form in Cuba, as a campaign to establish independent libraries, free of state control; and state repression has fallen on this campaign, too.
These Cuban events have attracted the attention of a number of intellectuals and liberals around the world. Václav Havel has organized a campaign of solidarity with the Cuban dissidents and, together with Elena Bonner and other heroic liberals from the old Soviet bloc, has rushed to support the Cuban librarians. A group of American librarians has extended its solidarity to its Cuban colleagues, but, in order to do so, the American librarians have had to put up a fight within their own librarians' organization, where the Castro dictatorship still has a number of sympathizers. And yet none of this has aroused much attention in the United States, apart from a newspaper column or two by Nat Hentoff and perhaps a few other journalists, and an occasional letter to the editor. The statements and manifestos that Havel has signed have been published in Le Monde in Paris, and in Letras Libres magazine in Mexico, but have remained practically invisible in the United States. The days when American intellectuals rallied in any significant way to the cause of liberal dissidents in other countries, the days when Havel's statements were regarded by Americans as important calls for intellectual responsibility—those days appear to be over.
I wonder if people who stand up to cheer a hagiography of Che Guevara, as the Sundance audience did, will ever give a damn about the oppressed people of Cuba—will ever lift a finger on behalf of the Cuban liberals and dissidents. It's easy in the world of film to make a movie about Che, but who among that cheering audience is going to make a movie about Raúl Rivero?
As a protest against the ovation at Sundance, I would like to append one of Rivero's poems to my comment here. The police confiscated Rivero's books and papers at the time of his arrest, but the poet's wife, Blanca Reyes, was able to rescue the manuscript of a poem describing an earlier police raid on his home. Letras Libres published the poem in Mexico. I hope that Rivero will forgive me for my translation. I like this poem because it shows that the modern, Almodóvar-like qualities of impudence, wit, irreverence, irony, playfulness, and freedom, so badly missing from Salles' pious work of cinematic genuflection, are fully alive in Latin America, and can be found right now in a Cuban prison.
Search Order
by Raúl Rivero
What are these gentlemen looking for
in my house?
What is this officer doing
reading the sheet of paper
on which I've written
the words "ambition," "lightness," and "brittle"?
What hint of conspiracy
speaks to him from the photo without a dedication
of my father in a guayabera (black tie)
in the fields of the National Capitol?
How does he interpret my certificates of divorce?
Where will his techniques of harassment lead him
when he reads the ten-line poems
and discovers the war wounds
of my great-grandfather?
Eight policemen
are examining the texts and drawings of my daughters,
and are infiltrating themselves into my emotional networks
and want to know where little Andrea sleeps
and what does her asthma have to do
with my carpets.
They want the code of a message from Zucu
in the upper part
of a cryptic text (here a light triumphal smile
of the comrade):
"Castles with music box. I won't let the boy
hang out with the boogeyman. Jennie."
A specialist in aporia came,
a literary critic with the rank of interim corporal
who examined at the point of a gun
the hills of poetry books.
Eight policemen
in my house
with a search order,
a clean operation,
a full victory
for the vanguard of the proletariat
who confiscated my Consul typewriter,
one hundred forty-two blank pages
and a sad and personal heap of papers
—the most perishable of the perishable
from this summer.
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
"Skewer of Strange Tastes" and Other Dishes From the Futurist Cookbook
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons











Remarks from the Fray:
…it seems to that while somebody needed to take a good whack at the Cult of Che, Berman is not the right guy to do it. I am disturbed when I see otherwise decent people wearing a T-shirt with the visage of a totalitarian killer. It would help young Lefties immeasurably in the realm of public debate to put those T-shirts away and find a new icon to represent radical democracy rather than communism. Or better yet, to avoid personality cultishness entirely. But Berman doesn't understand the phenomenon at all, and so he fails to make a convincing case.
First of all, Berman completely fails to understand the role of iconography in art, particularly in Catholic cultures. Che is a hero to many because he resisted a truly ugly system, remained true to his ideals, and conveniently died before the Revolution's slow, pathetic demise became apparent to nearly everyone. He is therefore associated in the public mind with what was right about the Revolution, rather than what was very, very wrong about it.
…Religious art rarely emphasizes the true humanity of its subjects…But none of this ever shows up in iconography, nor does it matter one whit to the faith of a believer. The humans underlying the icons are just stand-ins for the values they emphasize. Che has come to symbolize the values of resisting injustice and rejecting worldly excess. He's St. Francis in the secular host of angels. It mattered a great deal to his victims that he was really no such thing in life. But you aren't going to deflate that myth merely by pointing out that it doesn't match the man. If the film glorified the real Che Guevara, that would be highly offensive. But it's glorifying a person with decent values who never existed. If Che HAD BEEN a thoughtful opponent of injustice, it wouldn't be wrong to make a movie that praised him.
…What's wrong with this movie is not that it mythologizes Che Guevara, but that it mythologizes politics. It contributes to the neverending problem in which well-intentioned people substitute a good story for hard reality in our political discourse. The sooner people turn away from political iconography of all ideological flavors, the better.
--ShriekingViolet
(To reply, click here)
Of course Berman's right that the Che hagiography obscured the fact that he supported leftist totalitarianism. But he's guilty of the same sin he accuses the movie of-- telling half the story.
It bears remembering, after all, that Latin America was the site of some of capitalism's worst excesses. Land was concentrated in the hands of a few mostly absentee landlords; dark-skinned people toiled as virtual slaves; western corporations exploited the workforce; corrupt dictators lived high on the hog while imprisoning dissidents; and, when revolution was threatened, the United States would intercede to ensure that the fascists stayed in power.
This was the land of Batista, Trujillo, and Pinochet, the land of American-sponsored coups and the United Fruit Company.
Now does any of this justify Castro's continued repression or Hugo Chavez's caudillo-like rule? Not in the least. But the problem with this tired old debate is that neither side ever admits the excesses of its own men.
--Dilan_Esper
(To reply, click here)
The loneliest place on the left in the 1960s was reserved for those who opposed Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. I was there, as was Paul Berman, though we never met until years later. Every word he has written here was as true then as it is now.
…Why are people on the left so delusional about Castro and Guevara? There are three reasons that strike me.
One is Castro's good fortune in his enemies. While almost every American politician has opposed his rule to one degree or another, you are truly blessed when a racist peckerwood like Jesse Helms takes the lead in the fight against you, and does so by getting passed a law which commits the United States to side with the property claims of people who haven't lived in Cuba in forty years.
…The second reason is more subtle. It involves the cultural tendencies which arose in the 1960s, and the clever way in which Castro/Guevara were able to use those tendencies to retain support.
…The third reason is that rebellion is, for the most part, a luxury of the upper middle class. Which is where Fidel came from, where Che came from, and where much (though not all) of the opposition to America's ruling class comes from. Fidel and Che were, in a sense, speaking to their social peers when they addressed the American left, and knew how to be heard by them…
--The_Slasher-8
(To reply, click here)
If using an image of someone who relates to your struggle inspires you to fight injustice and oppression and racism - why shouldn't one use it? If using an image of someone fortifies your courage to defy a huge hostile and violent neighbor - why shouldn't one use it? This administration made an unprovoked attack on another country and has occupied it. Why wouldn't a Venezuelan or a Colombian or a Mexican want to use the image of a Latin American who stood up to 50 years of U.S. meddling and violence?
But Berman, much like the mono-maniacal Anti-Castro right wingers who have controlled U.S. policy toward Latin America, thinks that HE should decide what images and what ideals are appropriate.
For 45 years, the U.S. has supported bloody Latin American military dictatorships and crushed any anti-poverty movements that may have given any hope to 85% of the population … So fiercely does this colonial elite hold on that 3000 were killed or disappeared under Pinochet after the U.S. installed him, 30,000 were killed in Argentina after Henry Kissinger approved of the repression and 200,000 were slaughtered by the right wing military in Guatemala that the U.S. installed and funded.
Many Latin Americans are extremely proud of Che and Castro because they successfully challenged the U.S. which has bloodily crushed all other nationalistic, anti poverty movements in Latin America/Caribbean. As a Cuban party apparatchik said to me once, "Why can't you people just leave us alone and stop trying to cure us of our beliefs and stop trying to bend us to your will?" Well, Mr. Berman. Can't you just leave these people alone?
--De-Soto
(To reply, click here)
(9/28)